The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Ms A Alhayali
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Bourne |
| Subject Matter | Jurisdictional Points - State immunity,Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 05 December 2023 |
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia v Alhayali
© EAT 2023 Page 1 [2023] EAT 149
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 149
Case No: EA-2022-000096-AT
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 5 December 2023
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BOURNE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
THE ROYAL EMBASSY OF SAUDI ARABIA (CULTURAL BUREAU) Appellant
- and –
MS A ALHAYALI
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Claire Darwin KC and Andrew Legg (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the
Appellant
Madeline Stanley (instructed by Saltworks Law Ltd) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 4th – 5th October 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for a hand down Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia v Alhayali
© EAT 2023 Page 2 [2023] EAT 149
SUMMARY
Jurisdictional points – state immunity
Having (through its then solicitors) accepted the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) over
claims derived from EU law, the respondent subsequently sought to reassert state immunity, relying
on an official stamped (but unsigned) statement from the Embassy stating that no authority had been
given to the former solicitors to waive state immunity. The ET concluded, however, that the
respondent had validly submitted to its jurisdiction, going on to find that the claimant’s employment
was not an exercise of sovereign authority, nor were acts of sovereign authority pleaded to which
state immunity could attach. In the alternative, the ET found that pursuant to section 5 of the State
Immunity Act 1978 (“the SIA”) state immunity would be disapplied in respect of the claimant’s claim
that the respondent caused her psychiatric injury, this being a claim for personal injury.
The respondent appealed.
Held:
The fact that a statement had been produced by the Embassy did not mean that the ET was bound to
accept its content; however, in this case the ET had in failing to give the statement any weight.
Furthermore, when considering whether the functions performed by the claimant fell within the
sphere of sovereign activity, the ET’s analysis had lacked precision and had elided the questions it
was required to consider (Benkharbouche v Embassy of Sudan [2017] ICR 1327 SC and the provisions
of the State Immunity Act 1978 (Remedial) Order 2023 applied). Applying the correct test to the
ET’s findings of fact, it was apparent that the claimant was participating in the public service of the
Embassy, not merely its private administration. As there could only be one correct legal outcome on
the ET’s findings of fact, there was no scope for remitting this issue and, in this respect, its decision
on sovereign immunity must be set aside. That said, there was no basis for considering that the case
of Federal Republic of Nigeria v Ogbonna [2012] 1 WLR 139 EAT had been wrongly decided and
the ET had not erred in following and applying that decision, holding that section 5 SIA disapplied
sovereign immunity in respect of the claimant’s claim for psychiatric injury.
To continue reading
Request your trial